Hey, isn't this the same crew that had their own advertisements (with "celebrities" supporting the site) take down through DMCA?

Can't find the article.

I'm really not understanding how we can drag people that do something legal in their country all the way over here because some users in America uploaded something over there.

That's like <insert dictatorship here> dragging American journalists out of America for trial in <dictatorship> because they criticized the leader in an American newspaper, while living in Montana.

That doesn't mean I think what was going on was right, but I don't understand the legality. If I buy an American made wrench in Germany, I'm not suddenly subject to American laws regarding how I can use that wrench.

Yeah I've noticed the same over the years, it makes no sense. Right now the U.S. is trying to extradite a British guy for running a website that violates U.S. copyright laws.

I read some years ago so guy got arrested here for going to Thailand on some underage sex tour. Now granted I don't agree with what he did, but he broke laws in Thailand not here. The age of consent in Italy is 14, could I go to jail here because it's higher? I think many countries are afraid of the U.S. and just hand over people regardless of the circumstances.

Why yes you can go to jail if you are a US citizen and have sex with a 14 year old in Italy. There are plenty of laws that while they might not exist in the country you are in as a US citizen you are breaking federal law if you do so even in that other country.

I've always wondered why for example, that Netflix streaming has less movies and Netflix DVD has more. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. In the same way, I wondered why, on a recent trip to Canada, that I could not access the same Netflix streaming content as in the US. And this is the tip of the iceberg. There's Blu-Ray coding, so I can't buy gifts for people in foreign lands and so on and so on and so on and so on.

Well netflix DVD has the first sale doctorine in its favor meaning if the DVD is for sale they can buy it and rent it out under the limited licence agrement (meaning no public proformence etc). Netflix streaming on the other hand is for all intents and purposes the same as starting a TV station where one needs to buy the rights of content from the content owner. This cost more money.

Quote:

So now I am learning that it is "BIg Entertainment" imposing all sorts of arbitrary rules in an effort to control, thereby maximizing profits (at least in theory) as their driver. BE is like any other mega-corp, such as TWC and MSG denying Kinicks and Rangers coverage in NYC. The consumer is the 'loser' in this deformed version of capitalism where the leverage and power is one-sided.

Many of the things you are bitching about have nothing to do with the content owners but are instead governement protection racquets. Many countries including Canada for example have laws on the amount of foreign read US tv they will show despite there being demand for it. There are laws in countries about who can distribute movies and or how can exhibit movies. China will only allow about 2 dozen US movies a year to be exhibited. Portigual requires a domestic study to distrubte movies.

This is why its a mess. These laws hurt hollywood more than they help it but they have to play by them. An American Tentpole movie is going to have a study cut cloes to 70 percent of box office. The same films international cut is going to be closer to 40 percent. In some countries its practially chearty the release of the movie at all the cut is so low.

Quote:

And how is this going to play out? Is Mega file-storage? Of course. Will BE get its way? Can the FBI do this wothout SOPA? If yes, what's the point of SOPA other than to provide censorship authority for BE?

The reason the __AA wanted SOPA is to stop sites like Mega File 6 years ago before they got a foothold. Before they had to send thousands upon thousands of take down notices including some for the same file from the same uploaded just days later. I will be as kind as I can to the figure of how much damage this caused and say it was 1 million dollars up until this point. That is 1 million dollars more for coke and hookers which helps the LA economy.

"That doesn't mean I think what was going on was right, but I don't understand the legality. If I buy an American made wrench in Germany, I'm not suddenly subject to American laws regarding how I can use that wrench."

Yup it does if that wrench is regulated.

Actually, no, it does not. Once that wrench has made it in Germany, and if you came to its possession legally, the US judiciary has nothing left to say about it.

What part of "national sovereignty" do you guys do not understand?

Unless you renouce your US citizenship you are always under US jursidiction. You comment certain classes of crimes even in cournties its legal in and you have violated federal law.

The "legitimate content' is irrelevant once its determined that they're also hosting pirated materials and facilitating the distribution of it.

That's like asking the DEA agents why they confiscated all your grow lights when you got busted from growing pot when you only growing pot with 1/2 of them.

Oh bullshit..

By your conclusion you could say a person could be arrested for living in a high rise apartment for harboring an illegal enterprise because a guy he didn't know or see but lived in the same building on the third floor had a bookmaking operation in living room. Never mind even if they knew there was something happening...they were there.

Way to paint with a big ol brush. Let me know how those trials turn out in Salem....

I have absolutely no idea how you even came to that comparison...

If I have grow lights in my home and I get busted for growing then I'm going to lose all of my lights regardless of whether I was using them all for growing pot or not. If MegaUpload was facilitating illegal piracy then they're going to shut down the whole server, not pick through it file by file.

I have a much better analogy because.. well, it's not an analogy, it's exactly the same but in the physical world.

Let's say MU is a self-storage company: it leases boxes where tenants can store stuff.

Now, some people are storing, let's say, contraband in one of the boxes, and using it as a basis for trafficking.

A few questions (IANAL, so anybody who *is* is more than welcome to correct any invalid assumption)

1) Is MU legally responsible for what was stored in the boxes?As far as I understand it, no. As long as they cooperated with law enforcement, whatever was stored there is the responsibility of the tenant.This is the "safe harbor" provision.

2) Can MU be brought to justice as part of the trafficking? Not unless there is substantial evidence they aided and abetted the trafficking. That requires knowledge, intent and benefiting from it.This is, IMO, where the case hinges. If MU was not complicit in providing, promoting or selling the contraband, this is not much of a case. And definitely not a conspiracy.

3) Can a search and seizure of *all* boxes be performed as part of looking for proof of trafficking?Not impossible, but the impingement on the rights of other tenants would have to be justified by *very specific* evidence of a crime being committed, the impossibility to pinpoint *which box* specifically held the contraband, and the severity of the crime.That seems to opens quite a wide angle for a class action lawsuit for unlawful search and seizure in this case, because it was neither impossible to reduce the impact on legitimate customer by seizing only the contraband, nor was it a severe enough crime.

Hey, isn't this the same crew that had their own advertisements (with "celebrities" supporting the site) take down through DMCA?

Can't find the article.

I'm really not understanding how we can drag people that do something legal in their country all the way over here because some users in America uploaded something over there.

That's like <insert dictatorship here> dragging American journalists out of America for trial in <dictatorship> because they criticized the leader in an American newspaper, while living in Montana.

That doesn't mean I think what was going on was right, but I don't understand the legality. If I buy an American made wrench in Germany, I'm not suddenly subject to American laws regarding how I can use that wrench.

Yeah I've noticed the same over the years, it makes no sense. Right now the U.S. is trying to extradite a British guy for running a website that violates U.S. copyright laws.

I read some years ago so guy got arrested here for going to Thailand on some underage sex tour. Now granted I don't agree with what he did, but he broke laws in Thailand not here. The age of consent in Italy is 14, could I go to jail here because it's higher? I think many countries are afraid of the U.S. and just hand over people regardless of the circumstances.

Why yes you can go to jail if you are a US citizen and have sex with a 14 year old in Italy. There are plenty of laws that while they might not exist in the country you are in as a US citizen you are breaking federal law if you do so even in that other country.

No, there is such a thing as "jurisdiction". Look it up.

You keep on believing laws such as HR 313 or the Protect Act dont exist.

The indictment has some pretty damning evidence, including several emails where the defendants admitted to knowingly hosting infringing content. Thanks to an archaic US email law (signed by Reagan ffs), any emails older than 60 days or so are fair game and they don't need a warrant to read them.

They're boned, and if half of what's in the indictment is true, they got what was coming to them.

It's funny if you read the end of the indictment where it shows what they're subject to forfeit if they're convicted. There's a couple dozen cars, some TVs, etc. Only criminals get that rich; just ask anyone on Wall Street.

If you read the indictment, it's pretty clear that the infringement is actually severe, Page 10:

When a file is being uploaded to Megaupload.com, the Conspiracy’s automatedsystem calculates a unique identifier for the file (called a “MD5 hash”) that is generated using amathematical algorithm. If, after the MD5 hash calculation, the system determines that theuploading file already exists on a server controlled by the Mega Conspiracy, Megaupload.comdoes not reproduce a second copy of the file on that server. Instead, the system provides a newand unique URL link to the new user that is pointed to the original file already present on theserver. If there is more than one URL link to a file, then any attempt by the copyright holder toterminate access to the file using the Abuse Tool or other DMCA takedown request will fail because the additional access links will continue to be available

So they were continuing to store infringing content even after receiving a takedown request.

I have a much better analogy because.. well, it's not an analogy, it's exactly the same but in the physical world.

Let's say MU is a self-storage company: it leases boxes where tenants can store stuff.

Now, some people are storing, let's say, contraband in one of the boxes, and using it as a basis for trafficking.

This is actually a better example yes. But, to make your example fit better it would be the owner MU that is accused of contraband in their units or knowingly allowing contraband in their units.

Quote:

A few questions (IANAL, so anybody who *is* is more than welcome to correct any invalid assumption)

1) Is MU legally responsible for what was stored in the boxes?As far as I understand it, no. As long as they cooperated with law enforcement, whatever was stored there is the responsibility of the tenant.This is the "safe harbor" provision.

If the owners were truly cooperating with law enforcement there would be little to no problem. That is not what is happening here. In this case MU is being accused of turning a blind eye to the illegal activity and in fact knowingly profiting from that activity. Even if MU where to occisonally say to law enfocement that cat A is doing bad things if they are still as a total entity turning a blind eye they are going to get hit hard by the feds.

Quote:

2) Can MU be brought to justice as part of the trafficking? Not unless there is substantial evidence they aided and abetted the trafficking. That requires knowledge, intent and benefiting from it.This is, IMO, where the case hinges. If MU was not complicit in providing, promoting or selling the contraband, this is not much of a case. And definitely not a conspiracy.

So far at least a grand jury has agreed there is enough evidence to move the case forward. We will not know the answer to the trail or any plea bargin (oh please don't let there be a plea bargin for all the Ars warriors can pretend they were innocent but just could not fight the good fight). This of course is the theory. In the real world when the Feds get in front of a grand jury they have more than enough to convict. They are not in the habit of losing. Basically the only cases they lose are the more techinical ones like prejury and obstruction of justice when they over reach.

Quote:

3) Can a search and seizure of *all* boxes be performed as part of looking for proof of trafficking?Not impossible, but the impingement on the rights of other tenants would have to be justified by *very specific* evidence of a crime being committed, the impossibility to pinpoint *which box* specifically held the contraband, and the severity of the crime.That seems to opens quite a wide angle for a class action lawsuit for unlawful search and seizure in this case, because it was neither impossible to reduce the impact on legitimate customer by seizing only the contraband, nor was it a severe enough crime.

Yes they can seize all of the boxes in order to perserve evidence. Depending on a host of factors they might need to get indivdiual warrents to look at each box but they will have 0 problem getting these warrents.

There is no chance of a class action lawsuit at all for a class action. There is no chance at all for any individual to win a case against seizure. There might be a case if they do not get a warrent for an individual file but this depends again on a host of factors. Any contractual agreements, how its stored etc etc.

I have a much better analogy because.. well, it's not an analogy, it's exactly the same but in the physical world.

Let's say MU is a self-storage company: it leases boxes where tenants can store stuff.

Now, some people are storing, let's say, contraband in one of the boxes, and using it as a basis for trafficking.

A few questions (IANAL, so anybody who *is* is more than welcome to correct any invalid assumption)

1) Is MU legally responsible for what was stored in the boxes?As far as I understand it, no. As long as they cooperated with law enforcement, whatever was stored there is the responsibility of the tenant.This is the "safe harbor" provision.

2) Can MU be brought to justice as part of the trafficking? Not unless there is substantial evidence they aided and abetted the trafficking. That requires knowledge, intent and benefiting from it.This is, IMO, where the case hinges. If MU was not complicit in providing, promoting or selling the contraband, this is not much of a case. And definitely not a conspiracy.

3) Can a search and seizure of *all* boxes be performed as part of looking for proof of trafficking?Not impossible, but the impingement on the rights of other tenants would have to be justified by *very specific* evidence of a crime being committed, the impossibility to pinpoint *which box* specifically held the contraband, and the severity of the crime.That seems to opens quite a wide angle for a class action lawsuit for unlawful search and seizure in this case, because it was neither impossible to reduce the impact on legitimate customer by seizing only the contraband, nor was it a severe enough crime.

I would assume that MU wouldn't be responsible if one of their tenants simply stored contraband in one of their boxes. However if hundreds or thousands of different people came to visit that one particular storage container (which is a private storage container btw) every day and I think that it could be argued that UA should have realized that something was up and investigated.

OK if you guys read the text of the indictment (posted earlier here) you will see that those guy were really just stupid.

The FBI has several smoking guns. First the owners of the site posted several infringing links themselves while knowing that they infringed and the transfered more than $10000 across borders which explains those money laundry accusations.

They have a whole email conversations where they are bragging about their piracy heaven.

Reading the indictment, something all of you conspiracy types should do before you run your mouth, there is certainly a case to be made against Megavideo and its associated sites. I'm not certain all of the charges will stick but there is enough there to make some serious hay.

Seriously, go read it (here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment). The actual counts start on page 21. The Prosecutor has done an excellent job of outlining repeated, habitual, and ongoing violations of multiple US statutes as well as an organized conspiracy to do so.

Also, an important FYI: The money Laundering statutes in question makes it a crime to spend, distribute, or transfer the proceeds of any criminal activity, especially in amounts in excess of $10,000 and accross international borders. The international nature of MEGA makes this one pretty hard to dodge.

As nice as it was to pretend Megaupload was just an innocent locker site that happened to feature an astonishing amount of illicit content, the owners did a terrible job pursuing and preserving that illusion.

According the indictment, taking down a single link without removing all links to the same file hash, or removing the file itself, is non-compliant with the DMCA.

This seems very questionable.

The fact that one link is alleged to be infringing can't prove that all links to the same content are infringing. If Tupac uploaded a song to megaupload, and 200 of his fans upload the same song, obviously 1 of the 201 links generated is legit, while 200 are PROBABLY not. But if megaupload took down the actual content linked to by one download link, they run the risk of removing legitimately uploaded content. Considering how many 'creative celebrities' seem to like the site, this seems like a very real risk.

Here's why it wouldn't: all the different URLs link to the exact same file. If Tupac gave Megaupload permission to host and distribute that specific file, then they have permission to host and distribute that file. All the other links are just user-created bookmarks, essentially.

I'm really not understanding how we can drag people that do something legal in their country all the way over here because some users in America uploaded something over there.

That's like <insert dictatorship here> dragging American journalists out of America for trial in <dictatorship> because they criticized the leader in an American newspaper, while living in Montana.

^This. Ten thousand times over. I don't understand why american law is being applied across the globe. The argument that the site is being utilized by Americans doesn't make sense to me either. If people here are downloading stuff illegally then give them a REASONABLE (ie about the same as a parking ticket) fine and that'll fix the problem.

well, it was bound to happen. however, they also carried free content (like various versions of Linux). this is an example of the feds enforcing laws already on the books WITHOUT PIPA or SOPA. perhaps congress will get the hint and move on to more important things, like cutting down on pork barrel spending.

I have a much better analogy because.. well, it's not an analogy, it's exactly the same but in the physical world.

Let's say MU is a self-storage company: it leases boxes where tenants can store stuff.

Now, some people are storing, let's say, contraband in one of the boxes, and using it as a basis for trafficking.

A few questions (IANAL, so anybody who *is* is more than welcome to correct any invalid assumption)

1) Is MU legally responsible for what was stored in the boxes?As far as I understand it, no. As long as they cooperated with law enforcement, whatever was stored there is the responsibility of the tenant.This is the "safe harbor" provision.

2) Can MU be brought to justice as part of the trafficking? Not unless there is substantial evidence they aided and abetted the trafficking. That requires knowledge, intent and benefiting from it.This is, IMO, where the case hinges. If MU was not complicit in providing, promoting or selling the contraband, this is not much of a case. And definitely not a conspiracy.

3) Can a search and seizure of *all* boxes be performed as part of looking for proof of trafficking?Not impossible, but the impingement on the rights of other tenants would have to be justified by *very specific* evidence of a crime being committed, the impossibility to pinpoint *which box* specifically held the contraband, and the severity of the crime.That seems to opens quite a wide angle for a class action lawsuit for unlawful search and seizure in this case, because it was neither impossible to reduce the impact on legitimate customer by seizing only the contraband, nor was it a severe enough crime.

I would assume that MU wouldn't be responsible if one of their tenants simply stored contraband in one of their boxes. However if hundreds or thousands of different people came to visit that one particular storage container (which is a private storage container btw) every day and I think that it could be argued that UA should have realized that something was up and investigated.

They aren't required to investigate that because there are countless examples of legitimate links being visiting just as often or more often. I swear to god you lack whatever gene is required for having a logical thought process.

According the indictment, taking down a single link without removing all links to the same file hash, or removing the file itself, is non-compliant with the DMCA.

This seems very questionable.

The fact that one link is alleged to be infringing can't prove that all links to the same content are infringing. If Tupac uploaded a song to megaupload, and 200 of his fans upload the same song, obviously 1 of the 201 links generated is legit, while 200 are PROBABLY not. But if megaupload took down the actual content linked to by one download link, they run the risk of removing legitimately uploaded content. Considering how many 'creative celebrities' seem to like the site, this seems like a very real risk.

Here's why it wouldn't: all the different URLs link to the exact same file. If Tupac gave Megaupload permission to host and distribute that specific file, then they have permission to host and distribute that file. All the other links are just user-created bookmarks, essentially.

Not really. Megaupload system is just a way to save disk space. If Tupac deleted the file, gotten tired of distributing that song through Megaupload, him deleting that file wouldn't delete all the other 200 files.In reality one could argue that megaupload system is just a filesystem, living its own life, and the handles are the real files.

The laws of copyright differ from country to country. In some countries those files are perfectly legal, and deleting them would violate the customers rights. For example that Tupac song, when distributed bu Tupac, would be perfectly legal to store at Megaupload provided people don't redistribute it. Also many countries allow backupping CDs, DVDs and format conversions. Now if 2 persons did the format conversion with same program, the results would be identical, in MD5 too. One of those distributed his copy while the other just stored it in Megaupload. It would be perfectly legal to delete the distributing guys files, but if you delete the other guys files too, that would be illegal.

No bankers or backers or big wigs in Wall Street who perpetuated some of the biggest frauds in the history of the world that make these charges look like a ticket for jaywalking have yet to be charged, arrested, records seized, or generally looked down upon by any branch of the government.

In fact, the government bailed em out. Toast that tonight with your favorite beverage of choice!

I'm not going to lie, I used MegaUpload quite a bit, but the reactions in these comments are pretty fucking pathetic.

Please don't insult anyone's intelligence. MegaUpload was not a "good and honest filehost" with a few bad apples uploading and sharing pirated material. Although their download speeds were fantastic, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think it would never catch up with them. They were damn well aware of what they were doing, what content was being uploaded, and they damn well knew this when they paid out to their users for uploading rewards.

It's almost as hilarious as all the warez and piracy forums putting up politically charged statements about why they oppose SOPA.

Look, I don't care. I don't judge people who pirate, but the defense mechanisms that some of you guys use is simply ridiculous.

I hope everyone realizes that Megaupload was a cesspool of copyrighted videos/music/movies, etc...you could find pretty much anything you wanted on there right up until they shut down. To say you were following the DMCA rules and actually doing it by removing content was another thing. These guys were shady to begin with. I understand there are legitimate files uploaded but that's the price you pay going to one of these sites and trust them with your info...

So how does one run a site that respects copyright without 90% (or more) of the fee charged to users going to the handling of requests to take down content due to infringement?

I'm not sure but I think you would have to have deep pockets and another source of income! Something like Google with youtube... :-)

Youtube does it automaticly to a large extend, something that obviously cost a lot to develop and maintain, but it scales.

For example I wanted to share a funny part of the Daily Show with my mother, Youtube recognised it automaticly, so I flipped it 180 degrees, no problem.

Because where I live, downloading songs (for now) is perfectly legal. Storing you rmusic collection in a file locker is perfectly legal. So if many of us were to do that with songs we would have the same hash. Now if one of us would share the file and a takedown order is given, my legal file should remain. And since it appears that MU was storing that in a server park in my country, what business is it to the US.

The fact that all linked to one file is just fancy file system frolics and MU complied with removing the illegally shared link.

On the other hand MU was just being stupid if they really have written all those e-mails mentioned. They really should have stayed away from the content of their own site and have refrained from commenting on it anywhere unless thoroughly checked by a legal advisor.

Anyone running a file locker runs the risk of being seen as aiding in copyright infringement. At one time I ran an FTP server to conveniently cooperate on University assignments. Only people I worked with on assigments had a login/password, but I didn't check what they stored in their personal directories on the server. They might as well have put up a shitload of MP3's and posted their pw on the internet; I would only have noticed that from a bandwidth usage notice bij my hoster in all likelyhood.

I didn't get through all of the comments (most though), but a number of the servers were hosted physically in Virginia and DC, so it means the copyright infringement was occuring on US soil and directly breaking US law, not simply violating US (and possibly international) copyrights somewhere else.

To me the interesting thing is that one of the primary charges is that they were failing to execute DMCA take down notices...though from what I knew, they were pretty rigorous about doing take downs.

So...I can't defend them as it is fairly obvious how and why they were profiting, but they seemed to be doing a pretty good job of toeing the line with take downs and maybe even all of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.

Hey, isn't this the same crew that had their own advertisements (with "celebrities" supporting the site) take down through DMCA?

Can't find the article.

I'm really not understanding how we can drag people that do something legal in their country all the way over here because some users in America uploaded something over there.

That's like <insert dictatorship here> dragging American journalists out of America for trial in <dictatorship> because they criticized the leader in an American newspaper, while living in Montana.

That doesn't mean I think what was going on was right, but I don't understand the legality. If I buy an American made wrench in Germany, I'm not suddenly subject to American laws regarding how I can use that wrench.

Yeah I've noticed the same over the years, it makes no sense. Right now the U.S. is trying to extradite a British guy for running a website that violates U.S. copyright laws.

I read some years ago so guy got arrested here for going to Thailand on some underage sex tour. Now granted I don't agree with what he did, but he broke laws in Thailand not here. The age of consent in Italy is 14, could I go to jail here because it's higher? I think many countries are afraid of the U.S. and just hand over people regardless of the circumstances.

Why yes you can go to jail if you are a US citizen and have sex with a 14 year old in Italy. There are plenty of laws that while they might not exist in the country you are in as a US citizen you are breaking federal law if you do so even in that other country.

No, there is such a thing as "jurisdiction". Look it up.

You keep on believing laws such as HR 313 or the Protect Act dont exist.

Show me a law that covers the exact situation you described above. Neither of these apply.

Not all countries are signatories to an international treaty concerning copyrights, Russia is a significant omission. Under the treaty, copyrights in one country are respected by all other countries in the treaty. That's how "US laws" are applicable in other countries.

Another fact of law is that the servers in question were located physically in Virginia. That makes it a US federal crime. I'm assuming that New Zealand will extradite the 4 arrested there to the US after some legal performances.

I think the shotgun approach used by the FBI was regrettable, there were probably some legitimate users and uses of megaupload.com. Those data files are probably gone and out of reach by their legitimate owners.

My complaint about this event and the SOPA/PIPA idiocies are that they do not separate the bad actors from the good. Websites of every description have the exact same issue. How do you exclude the bad or illegal from the good? The FBI doesn't seem to know the difference. Its obvious that Congress and the Senate are clueless. How in hell do you educate a Luddite in the finer points of Internet technology when he doesn't want to know?

If you want to pirate stuff, you just have to not profit from it. So you can relax, there isn't going to be a helicopter raid to confiscate your mp3 collection.

That's right. You'll just get taken away by a very stern looking young lady in uniform, locked in a cell with someone who has probably commited actual crimes (and may well commit them against you), go through several months worth of humiliating trials and then get fined $150,000 per MP3. You won't be able to pay (of course; who could?) and then you'll be sentanced to what amounts to "life in prison" where you'll be passed around for some anal excavation for more years than people get for murder.

Or...we could set the fines at something far more reasonable. 10x the cost of the song/movie/etc. That's still a disincentive to pirate, but it doesn't ruin someone's life for taking part in an activity that - quite frankly - most of our society has done. Especially when people could be engaging in copyright infringement entirely unknowingly. (What? I can't backup my CD to MP3s in this jurisdiction? I can't rip my Blu-ray to my laptop to watch it on the plane? You are sending me to jail for ripping a DVD?!?)

Look; most (sane) jurisdictions have taken a similar approach even for drugs. (And that is in spit of the USA’s completely unscientific and insane prejudice against them.) If you are caught with less than X grams of pot, you’ll get a fine. Not jail time. And the fine is reasonable; it doesn’t ruin lives.

People aren’t the playthings of governments and corporations. We aren’t here to “serve as an example” so they can cow and terrify the rest of the populace. We are real individuals, each of us with our own hopes, dreams, desires, families, friends and so forth. (If you prick us, do we not bleed?)

Reduce the cost of infraction to something that doesn’t seem like you are punishing rebellious slaves with a good ol’ fashioned lynching, and then we can have a grown up discussion about how best to deal with the social issues regarding piracy.

But the extremism of the copyright cartels has earned them nothing but enimity. From the general consuming populace, but also from people like me.

People who earn a living by creating content.

And I say the content cartels should be the ones in prison. They are harming creators. Our reputations, our ability to earn a livelihood, and they aren’t representing our interests at all. Copyright has gone too far. It’s time to reign it in and start having sane discussions about how this can best serve creators in a framework that addresses the needs and benefit of society as a whole.

Rightsholding megacorporations need not apply. Their opinions and voices have no place in these discussions.